From TheKolWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Large Pages

I say some pages such as ascension, sorceress' tower/quest, and violet fog should be broken up into their components. Some of ascension's components already exist and either version may be missing info from the other and are somewhat redundant, but with inconsitencies with minor details or phrasings. It's easier to find things thru search if they're broken up. The only downside is you won't have one big to page to find every thing, but if we still want to keep that, I say we could start some transclusion maybe:


--Dehstil (T | C) 18:25, 17 June 2006 (CDT)

  • I agree that it's a bit clumsy to have a gigantic page. Also, the way, the sorceress page does it, with "that red box, is terribly inefficient, in my opinion. Inevitably, every single time I need tower spoilers, I go through the first page to get to the second page. I'm at a little bit of a loss as to what a good solution would be, though. If a person went to the generic Naughty Sorceress page, for instance, would they get a disambiguation-style list of links to the various parts? Or would they get a general overview page with links to expanded pages? I think what Ascension does is a very good example. It provides a very good overview over a HUGE aspect of the game, so that the casual wiki user can find the basics of ascension without being overwhelmed, while providing links to the "delightfully obsessive," as Gymnosophist would say, pages with in-depth information. A good root Naughty Sorcerss page, then, would, in my opinion, have to consist not only of a bunch of a links to component pages, but provide a very general breakdown of what needs to happen with the quest. Perhaps a bulleted list, starting
Those links, would, of course, point to actual in-depth sub-pages, which brings me to another issue: The Entrance Cavern (1) already has its own page, but that's just an informational page, not a spoilerific page. The two should stay distinct. There are probably a ton of other minor issues, but this is something that needs to be done. I'm just throwing out an idea of one way to do it. --Alpaca (T/C) 21:05, 20 August 2006 (CDT)


Is there a reason why the Valhalla section isn't organized like other sections? (That is, with the four major places set up with their own page, listing the possible adventures, and the adventures on their own page?--Foggy 12:29, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

  • How do you mean? Valhalla, redirecting to Beyond the Pale, seems to contain links to all four major places with their adventures listed. --Alpaca (T/C) 12:33, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
  • Each of the four places in Valhalla strike me more as locations (like say, Kitchen, or Menagerie Level 3), whereas each of the adventures you get by clicking on those links are true adventures, and should probably each have their own page, in the Non-Combat template.--Foggy 12:40, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
  • Hmmm, you have a point. I will get to that in a minute =)--SomeStranger (t|c) 10:31, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Looks like you made Beyond the Pale into a location with four adventures. I think he meant that those four place should be locations and that we should scatter their entrails into separate adventure locations. Personally, I'm okay with the way it is now, but just barely have that preference.--Dehstil (t|c) 19:05, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
  • What Dehstil said...I did mean that much like say, The Beach might be a page leading to other locations Valhalla be set up the same way. Given it's role in the game, might not be worth the effort.--Foggy 01:53, 5 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Hmm, well the adventures listed aren't templated and it seems kinda silly to list "Item drops: none, Meat drop: none, Substat gain: none" for a location instead of an adventure. Anybody against breaking it up?--Dehstil (t|c) 20:09, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
  • My obsessive side says to go ahead and break it all up, though it does seem a little bit silly - these are adventures only in the most ridiculously technical sense, given that they're mostly just funny text. All things considered, I'm neutral on the subject. --Alpaca (T/C) 20:15, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
  • I agree that it should be broken up, although it's something of a back-burner project. In support of breaking things up, note that the location page Beyond the Pale links link to adventure pages, not location pages. This should be corrected. --Gymnosophist 15:45, 22 August 2006 (CDT)

Category Changes

Misc Categories

  • Category:Skills (129 links) → break into its subtypes (Buff, Combat, Passive, Noncombat).
    • Disagree - subtypes aren't particularly meaningful. Don't need the clutter. Suggest new "Skills by Function" page as per Category talk:Skills. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • "I think that without exception every item is categorized as to what it is (weapon, food, misc, etc.)."
      Skills have a field in their description like "Type: Noncombat". We have categories for all other type descriptors. If a type is clearly defined as a set of other subtypes, we use those (like how equipment contains hats, weapons, pants, accessories, etc). I think we should be consistent here as we do with other in-game types. Plus, I find such a set of categories "useful" (unfortunately, all this discussion should be argueing how something or the other better fulfills the project goal...we don't really have one defined. Maybe something like this? "To create a comprehensive and comprehensible source of spoilerific KoL documentation/analysis.")--Dehstil (t|c) 21:59, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Ah - a mission statement - that's what we've been missing!  :) Actually, you've about half convinced me that we could live with the new categories. I still plan on making the new "Skills by Function" page when I get around to it though. --Gymnosophist 09:42, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Hmm, does actually sound like a half-way decent misson statement? :P--Dehstil (t|c) 17:23, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
      • Actually, it does. :) --Alpaca (T/C) 14:36, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Disagree. Would be much more useful to group skills by something else, like "damage absorption," "attack," "stat gains," etc. (Not that I'm recommending this.) Simply grouping by how they go about it doesn't seem particularly useful. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:36, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
      • I have repeatedly desired a list of just the Passive skills lately, as I've been laying out my plan for Hardcore Perm ordering, and it seems obvious to me that the Passive skills should be early because once they're gained they're activated forever. Of course, a manually updated Skills by Mechanism page would serve as well. Just FYI. --Jonrock 22:42, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
        • Does the Skills By MP Cost page work for you? All the passive skills are grouped together at the top of the list. You don't have to look at the bottom of the list if you dont want to!  :) --Gymnosophist 22:53, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
          • I just now found that, and yes. :) --Jonrock 23:36, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Starting Equipment (12 links) → Move to a new page about starting out.
    • In addition to dissolving Category:Starting Equipment, also list the starting equipment (and other class-specific equipment such as the diamond-studded cane) on the class pages, as discussed under Talk:Pastamancer --Jonrock 17:58, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • I assume that by move it is meant that the category is to be dissolved, in which case, agree. Agree also with adding info to Class pages. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • If there are "Epic Weapons" and "Epic Hats", perhaps there should be a "Starting Equipment" page. On the other hand, there's already "Class-Specific Equipment" so perhaps the epic pages should be deleted instead. Hmm.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:59, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agree. I don't see how knowing that an item is the starting equipment for one of six classes is remotely useful, except for the implication that it can be gotten from the sewer, which is all mentioned at the relevant item's page anyway. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:36, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • I've updated the Gear section of the Class pages with the starting equipment and went on to dissolve the Category:Starting Equipment. We could probably still use a good page starter page for KoL newbies. Any volunteers? --Gymnosophist 16:21, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Make Category:Cocktailcrafting Ingredients (101 links), Category:Cooking Ingredients (130 links), Category:Jewelrymaking Components (8 links), Category:Meatsmithing Components (138 links), Category:Supertinkering Components (15 links), etc. subcategories of Category:Crafting Items.
    • Agree, except for Category:Supertinkering Components, about which, see comments in Misc "Crafting" Categories below. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agree as per Gymnosophist's comments above. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:36, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Images (4 links), Category:Booze images (23 links), Category:Clan images (41 links), Category:Class Images, Category:Familiar-related images (97 links) → Dissolve. Nothing links here, don't need to categorize images. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • How about a project page listing this info along with other image info? See "A Companion for {{plural}}", below.--Dehstil (t|c) 22:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • I really don't see why this would be helpful - can you tell me why it might be? --Gymnosophist 09:42, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
    • I really don't either, but there was a fuss about it earlier; I don't know by whom. It wouldn't hurt me to see it go.--Dehstil (t|c) 17:23, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Dissolve, BUT: It's a larger issue as to how to go about categorizing images, or whether to do it at all, or what. The current scheme is simply pathetic, and needs to be dissolved anyway, but the general categorization of images still needs to be addressed. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:36, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • My opinion is that we don't need to categorize images at all. I know that Wikipedia does, at least to some degree, but the main thrust of their organization system seems to be to make sure that images aren't copyrighted; in issue that we don't have to deal with. --Gymnosophist 16:21, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
      • Categories deleted . --Gymnosophist 21:40, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Mafia Items (33 links) → dissolve and merge into new overarching Mafia page. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agreed; useless category.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Agree. Pointless grouping. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:36, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Naughty familiars (5 links) → dissolve and merge somewhere in the Naughty Sorceress pages. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agreed; useless category.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agree. No useful purpose grouping them together. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:36, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • All items are linked from The Sorceress' Tower#The Familiars. Done. --Jonrock 23:15, 7 October 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Paths (3 links) → dissolve and merge somewhere in Ascension. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agreed; useless category.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agree. Way too obvious to want categorization, and only 3 members, anyway. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:36, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • All items are linked from Ascension#Paths. Done. --Jonrock 23:15, 7 October 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Drops (460 links) → dissolve. We don't need this category - it's way too massive to be useful. On the other hand, if we decide to keep it, we should retain/make categories that reflect all the other ways that items may be obtained. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Keep for now, until we decide whether we want/need other categories like it.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Dissolve. Nothing useful in such a grouping of items. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:36, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
      • I'm going to start working on deleting the Drops category. It'll be a bitter sweet task - I'll miss seeing Drops | Pants (like white satin pants). Ah well such is the price of progress! --Gymnosophist 21:59, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
      • Done, it remain just to delete the page --Kaiou 15:17, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
  • As I've been deleting my way through the Category:Drops, I've been updating Item Drops (By Location). I'd like to propose a slight repurposing of the Item Drops (By Location) page, namely, to expand it to include NPC buys and other misc. items obtained at specific locations. Accordingly, the page would be renamed to, perhaps, "Items by Location". --Gymnosophist 21:34, 29 August 2006 (CDT)

In connection with the deletion of the Category:Drops, I've been

  • Category:NPC Buy (187 links) → dissolve. Another unneeded category. I'd talked about deleting the category in the General Comments section below, but neglected to explicitly add the category to the list. --Gymnosophist 16:21, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agreed, categories by source are no good.--Dehstil (t|c) 20:57, 22 August 2006 (CDT)

Usable Items

  • Category:Reagent Potions (30 links) → merge into Advanced Saucecrafting.
    • I assume that by merge it is meant that the category is to be dissolved, in which case, agree. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Neutral. I can see how redundant and useless it seems next to the table in advanced saucecrafting, but I can also see how somebody would find it useful to browse through. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:16, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Based on how other category discussions worked out, this should be dissolved/merged. Since I originally proposed this one, I can't really vote twice; anyone else have an opinion?--Dehstil (t|c) 18:14, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Former Reagent Potions (12 links) → merge into Advanced Saucecrafting.
    • I assume that by merge it is meant that the category is to be dissolved, in which case, agree. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Half-agree. Merge/expand into some sort of category/page for former items in general. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:16, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • We have something like that already - Rare Items#Items that have been completely removed from the game - will this do? --Gymnosophist 16:36, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Hmm, to be clear and specific, they aren't really rare items. Plus that one section is actually history so perhaps they should go on a separate page like "Removed Items", "Renamed Items" or something else, categorized under history? Also, we could include renamed items, maybe. Talk:White Castle fries--Dehstil (t|c) 20:52, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Ok how about a page like Deimplemented Items?--Dehstil (t|c) 22:53, 2 October 2006 (CDT)
      • Sorry, I lost track of this thread. Yes, it's a good idea, both the dead items and the renamed ones. I almost hesitate to say it, but the name should probably mirror the name we use for dead adventures (I said I liked "Retired" for the dead adventures, but "Deimplemented" is just as good). --Gymnosophist 23:29, 2 October 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Potions → (21 links) either change to Category:(Mostly) Potions and match in-game or remove completely.
    • Remove completely. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Create "(Mostly) Potions". In the future we may do other types.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • I assume you mean that new categories should be created that mirror the inventory layout - Miscellaneous:(Mostly) Potions, Miscellaneous:(Mostly) Combat Items, Miscellaneous:Miscellaneous Items and Consumables:Miscellaneous. I would strongly disagree. --Gymnosophist 09:42, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Hmm, yeah prolly not so good of a category anyways. If anyone is interested in an inventory page containing this information though go for it. If it happens, either the items in each part could be listed, or somebody finds out a clear definition of "(Mostly) Potions" etc.--Dehstil (t|c) 17:23, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Either do nothing or remove completely. (Mostly) Potions would, by its very existance, necessitate the creation of other categories that mirror the inventory, as Gymnosophist mentioned. Bad idea. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:16, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • We have a account menu; an explanation of the inventory and its sections would seem logical, but most people don't find such pages useful. If "inventory" doesn't happen, perhaps "account menu" isn't nescessary or useful, maybe?--Dehstil (t|c) 20:52, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
      • I think an explanation of the inventory and its sections, as well as the account menu, is potentially useful; we just don't have to use the inventory as a system for categorizing items. --Alpaca (T/C) 21:07, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Just to note, The Flea Market also uses that system of categorization, kinda:
      Consumables: [food] [booze] [other]
      Equipment: [weapons] [hats] [pants] [accessories] [off-hand] [familiar]
      Miscellaneous: [miscellaneous] [potions] [combat items]
      --Dehstil (t|c) 17:40, 6 September 2006 (CDT)

  • Category:Oyster Eggs (32 links) → dissolve and merge into Oyster Egg Day. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agreed; useless category.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agreed, especially since the very names of the items make it bloody obvious. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:16, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Done.--Dehstil (t|c) 00:01, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Candy (16 links) → dissolve and merge into new candy page. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Maybe, is there any special reason for having a list of candy, beyond them being candy? A slightly different type is already listed at Halloween, so perhaps dissolve.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Ah, forgot about Halloween - that's all we need. --Gymnosophist 09:42, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agreed, and probably without even having to make a "candy" page. Candies have no functionally unifying theme, coming from different places, bestowing different effects, etc, not even having sugar rush in common. Kinda like making a category for "Vegetables," comprised of asparagus and tomato. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:16, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Hey - Vegetables - we need that category!  :) Do you remember the user that had a thing about golems - first a template, then a category. Sassy! --Gymnosophist 16:36, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Done. Some of the sillier groupings could have featured articles though, featuring all sorts of wiki content, like all the golems in the kingdom ;) --Dehstil (t|c) 21:41, 3 September 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Dusty Animal Bones (103 links) → Eh, we didn't catch and nip this one in the bud, but it's just as useless as Candy. 99% of its value is covered by the dusty animal bones page.--Jonrock 18:39, 30 September 2006 (CDT)
    • Agreed. Plus, removing the bones category will get our junk category list marrowed narrowed down!  :) --Gymnosophist 20:02, 30 September 2006 (CDT)
    • Removed from existence.--Dehstil (t|c) 19:04, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

Misc "Crafting" Categories

  • Category:Star Items (16 links) → Dissolve, already listed at star chart.
    • Agree. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agree. Ridiculously obvious, anyway. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:39, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Done.--Dehstil (t|c) 23:36, 7 September 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Toys (16 links), Category:Toy Parts (6 links) → Match other crafting categories getting rid of Toys and keeping Toy Parts and Toymaking? Or is that group too small for a Toy Parts category?
    • Remove completely (already listed at Toymaking) Toy Parts is not on in-game type. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Dissolve both. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:39, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • I added "See also: Toymaking" to the ingredients, but left the resulting toys alone since the recipe includes more than enough cross-linkage. Done. --Jonrock 22:30, 7 October 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Pixellated Items (15 links) → Dissolve. Already listed at The Crackpot Mystic's Shed.
    • Agree. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Dissolve. Once again, ridiculously obvious. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:39, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Done.--Dehstil (t|c) 00:48, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Supertinkering Components (15 links) → Dissolve, already listed at Supertinkering. Supertinkering Component is not an in-game type --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agreed. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:39, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Done. --Jonrock 22:58, 7 October 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Combines (111 links) → match other crafting categories, create Combining; what should it be named though: Combining Parts or Components or what?
    • Dissolve - make new Combined Items page. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • "combining" sounds clunky and "pasting" is too close to "pasta". I know it's crazy to suggest using a name that isn't used in the game, but I do think that "tinkering" fits the pattern set by supertinker and untinker. (This is not a vote either way on whether the components, results, or both, belong in the category so named--that's a separate issue.) --Jonrock 18:00, 19 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Hmm, put these on hold, until we settle all the other stuff down at "General Comments".--Dehstil (t|c) 21:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Dissolve, I'd say. Way too much stuff, and nothing useful in saying "these items can potentially be combined with meat paste." --Alpaca (T/C) 14:39, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Creating a crafting-like page for meatpasting would probably be difficult, but put it on the todo list.--Dehstil (t|c) 20:56, 22 August 2006 (CDT)

Weapon Categories

  • Category:1-Handed Weapons (88 links), Category:2-Handed Weapons (102 links), Category:3-Handed Weapons (4 links) → Retain. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Melee Weapons (152 links) → Retain, but remove all weapons from this category. All non-Stave weapons should be reclassed into a new Category:Misc Melee Weapons, which is a sub-category of Category:Melee Weapons. Make a table in Category:Melee Weapons that lists all Melee Weapons by hands required. Make a table in Category:Misc Melee Weapons that lists Misc Melee weapons by type (Axes, Whips, etc.). There are specific game mechanics that pertain to Melee Weapons. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Axes (6 links), Category:Clubs (19 links), Category:Flails (3 links), Category:Knives (6 links), Category:Polearms (7 links), Category:Saucepans (2 links), Category:Spears (5 links), Category:Swords (46 links), Category:Umbrellas (2 links), Category:Utensils (17 links), Category:Whips (6 links) → Dissolve. Categories are not meaningful. Items already listed in Category:Melee Weapons (but will be moved to new Category:Misc Melee Weapons). --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Staves (31 links) → Retain, but make a sub-category of Category:Melee Weapons. There are specific game mechanics that pertain to staves. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Ranged Weapons (43 links) → Retain, but remove all weapons from this category. All non-Crossbow weapons should be reclassed into a new Category:Misc Ranged Weapons, which is a sub-category of Category:Ranged Weapons. Make a table in Category:Ranged Weapons that lists all Ranged Weapons by hands required. Make a table in Category:Misc Ranged Weapons that lists Misc Ranged Weapons by type (Accordions, Bows, etc.). There are specific game mechanics that pertain to Ranged Weapons. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Crossbows (23 links)→ Retain, but make a sub-category of Category:Ranged Weapons. There are specific game mechanics that pertain to Crossbows. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Accordions (2 links), Category:Banjos (2 links), Category:Bows (2 links) and Category:Slingshots (2 links) → Dissolve. Categories are not meaningful. Items already listed in Category:Ranged Weapons (but will be moved to new Category:Misc Ranged Weapons). --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Other Weapons (14 links) → Dissolve. Move items to new Category:Misc Melee Weapons or new Category:Misc Ranged Weapons as appropriate. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

I'd rather keep a lot of these, except that fix of mechanics for melee weapons.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

It seems a bit daft to single out staves and crossbows as deserving of their own categories "because there are specific game mechanics for them" when the same reason doesn't apply to crafting items, usable items, and skills. Am I misreading this, or would Category:Melee Weapons end up consisting only of (1) Staves and (2) Misc? That's giving staves a startlingly prominent pride of place. No, actually, I like the weapon categories as they currently are. --Jonrock 20:06, 19 August 2006 (CDT)

  • Given my druthers, I would rename Melee Weapons to "Non-Ranged Weapons" (currently it's confusing that there are ranged weapons that do bonus "melee" damage), and then split Other Weapons into Other Ranged and Other Non-Ranged, and then stop. --Jonrock 20:22, 19 August 2006 (CDT)

No, you're not misreading this - Melee Weapons (or perhaps Non-Ranged Weapons - thanks for the heavy metal thunderrr guitarrr reminder - I'd forgotten about this sort of exception) would consist solely of subcategories Staves and Misc Melee Weapons. Also, the text of the weapons category needs to be reworked. Currently, there's no discussion of weapon mechanics (staves, crossbows, ranged, etc.), just a cutesy note. I'm not concerned about giving Staves a "place of pride" - that's like saying that NPC Stores have a place of pride in Category:Locations. It's a meaningless concept. Additionally, catagories should be useful (see General Comments below). Most of the weapon subcatagories are not. Finally, what is it about the current weapon catagorization scheme that you like? Can you honestly say that, say, Category:Saucepans, with only two members in the category, is in any way useful? If the position is that there should be a category for each and every in-game weapon type, then we should create dissolve Category:Other Weapons and make new categories for autopults, boomerangs, cans, daggers, disco ball, guitars, implements, pistols, sacks, scythes, tools, wands, ...weapons, and yo-yos, all "categories" with only one member. A droll suggestion? Yeah, I think so. --Gymnosophist 09:42, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

  • Actually because of the addition of +X Ranged Damage enchantments (2 new items specifically), eventually ranged weapons should no longer have +X Melee Damage enchantments and +X Melee Damage will no longer also give extra Ranged Damage. Actually I asked on a radio show a week (or so back) and Jick and Co. said they were looking over +X Melee\Ranged Damage enchantments on melee/rangedweapons and the possible separation thereof, though it may look like a "nerf" on +X Melee Damage, it's how it should work. +X Melee Damage should only give +X Melee Damage on Melee Weapons and +X Ranged Damage should only give +X Ranged Damage on Ranged Weapons. Though no timeline, it is a possibilty. --JRSiebz (|§|) 23:02, 15 September 2006 (CDT)

Adventure/Adventures Category

I figured this would be a good spot for my masochistic project... I'm not doing anything because having the category in the template is apparently a very bad idea (tm), so I don't wanna continue to push ahead doing the wrong thing. But even though JRSeibz is infinitely wiser and more venerable in the world of wiki than I could ever aspire to be, I'm still not fully convinced that this would be such an awful thing. Addressing the potential issues, as I remember them, point by point, I think that people who wanted to include fights or noncombat adventures in weird places could just as well use substitution. Same for established standards, even - we show the correct code on the very page, and the innards are messed up enough as it is, so people shouldn't be viewing source for an example of what to do anyway. I do agree that including the category in the template does raise the issue of certain adventures that should be put under a different letter/number in the category than they would normally be. I think for those adventures, though, the individual category tag could be thrown in additionally at the end. Granted, there might be a little tiny bit of redundancy, but no harm is really done.

Either way, I'd love input on this, so I know in what direction I should go. --Alpaca (T/C) 21:21, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

  • How about this: Established Standards for a certain type of page goes at the beginning of the category for that type. See Category:Adventures.--Dehstil (t|c) 22:19, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
    • I don't quite get what you're saying. My question is whether we should include the category tag within the adventure/combat header templates, thus autocategorizing all such pages (as happens now), or whether we should manually change the adventure category to an adventures category. --Alpaca (T/C) 13:53, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • I seem to have missed out on the earlier discussion on this, but from the sounds of things, it would be OK for the Adventures category to be in the template, especially if we could make the category conditional (I think I saw some discussion on doing this sort of thing somewhere). Does this mean that we'd need to clean up the old Adventure category from the adventure pages? If so, sounds like a great bot project. --Gymnosophist 16:48, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Yep! I've already gone and manually cleaned the "A"s, and now I've stopped because JRSiebz raised some concerns about such a category inclusion within the template causing stuff from other places to be categorized as "Adventures," and, more difficultly, to have things starting with "The" and such being categorized under "T" instead of custom-categorized. (Though both of those can, I think, be worked out with conditionals.) --Alpaca (T/C) 17:15, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • You can still recategorize said pages starting with "the" with no problem. So categorization by template seems ok by me, especially if autocategorization can be disabled. What I said up above is that the established standards page of a certain type gets listed at the top of the category for that type.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:13, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
  • I've tried eliminating established standards from the category, but my parserfunctions skillz apparently aren't good enough. Anybody wanna help? (Remember, both battletop and adventuretop need to be edited.) Also, should the monster compendia be included in the category? Those aren't really adventures, just a list of things you could potentially encounter during them. Dunno. --Alpaca (T/C) 10:54, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Uh, I'm still asking for opinions here, since I don't wanna move ahead with something that's bad or that people don't like. --Alpaca (T/C) 21:47, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Well, I'm all for it. Especially since categorization is now optional, and sorting is easily overrided.--Dehstil (t|c) 17:55, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Absolutely, go for it! (That is, if you really prefer "Adventures" to "Parlous Perambulations")  :) --Gymnosophist 18:56, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
Category Split
  • Well, since it's automatically categorized, couldn't we have {{battletop}} do "Category:Combat Adventures" and {{adventuretop}} do "Category:Non-combat Adventures"? In its current form (very very large), "Category:Adventures" is almost impossible to use; a split would increase usefulness.--Dehstil (t|c) 20:40, 3 September 2006 (CDT)
  • I don't like calling them "Non-Combat" adventures, It's negative and is defined by what the other category is not. But I can't think of a better name than Non-Combat though. Skills can be typed as Noncombat though, Hmm. "Text Adventures", an "incident" or an "event. he he. ick. Combat Frequency modifiers never specifically say combat/noncombat in-game, but say "Monsters will be more/less attracted to you" instead.. On a side note, what are the thoughts on adding a category for "Choice Adventures" also? or as a subcat of "Non-Combat Adventures". more Hmmms. --JRSiebz (|§|) 03:18, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
  • Personally, when talking with friends about them, call them "passive" adventures, but that's not quite accurate... --Alpaca (T/C) 09:29, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
  • You know, I'm usually a crusader against expanding categories, but here, I actually like it. Adventures is just too large to be useful. Another possibility for the Non-Combat/Passive adventures might be Static adventures. I also like having a Choice subcategory, as well as possibly Clover, One Time, Obsolete, Boss, etc. But I don't want to recreate the mess we have with the Weapon categories and have an adventure categorized six ways to Sunday. If we do implement a number of Adventure categories, I'd like to see things arranged as follows: Combat, Static (or Non-Combat or Passive) and Obsolete all subcategories of a main Adventures category. Boss should be a subcategory of Combat, and Boss adventures should by categorized only as Boss. Clover should be a subcategory of Static, and Clover adventures should by categorized only as Clover. Obsolete adventures should by categorized only as Obsolete. One Time is tricky. One Time can be either Combat or Static or Obsolete or Boss or Choice. Further, One Time isn't always strictly one-time - some adventures persist until you beat the monster or pass the challenge. Choice is also tricky, but perhaps not as much so as One Time. Choice adventures can be One Time, and choices can result in either Combat or Static adventures. If we want to use adventure subcategories, we'll have to discuss Choice and One Time further. But generally speaking, I'm all for it. --Gymnosophist 17:21, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
    • I like "Retired Adventures" better than "Obsolete Adventures", plus the "history" category is getting muddled up. It's a combination of history articles mixed with "Retired" Items, Skills, Adventures?, and Locations along with Permanent Record Boards. Category is hard to navigate through. And back to the original topic... Choice Adventures are noncombat adventures, but they are not passive, because they require an active choice ;-). dum-dum-dum. --JRSiebz (|§|) 18:04, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
  • Static: Unchanging; how does that contrast from "Combat"?
    Passive: Inert, unresponsive; eh, maybe.

    So far, I still think "Non-combat" is the clearest, but I'll leave that up to you guys. Those other categories seem fine, maybe not "Category:One time". I still wonder why skills couldn't be split up (none of the types overlapped or were confusing or useless as a type) on similar presmises, but maybe "Category:Skills" just isn't big enough.--Dehstil (t|c) 17:44, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

Ok, the category looks kinda empty now; maybe some of those iffy subcategories could be pages instead? Clover Adventures is already done.--Dehstil (t|c) 00:26, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

Category Content

  • Should it be policy that the majority of info for a particular Category:Foo should be at page "Foo"? It'd cut down on doing [[:Catgory:Foo]] when we really mean [[Foo]]. I noticed people creating redirects like "Foo → Category:Foo" anyways. See Talk:Elements + Page history of Category:Outfits.
    Also, when do we do "Category:Foos" and when do we do "Category:Foo"?--Dehstil (t|c) 21:00, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
    • I think that Category:Foo should provide a brief description of its components in terms of unifying theme (see my bit in General Comments) and other basics, and often, I think the page Foo might not even be necessary. If somebody is looking for information about Foo, they probably don't need to see an alphabetized list of stuff that falls under Foo. On the other hand, if somebody's looking for stuff that falls under foo, they probably don't want to scroll through the full details of Foo. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:51, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • I'm not sure that we can formulate a definitive policy on this, but, generally speaking, I think it depends on the size and complexity of the Foo information. For simple things like Beverages and Cooking Ingredients, the data is easily presentable on the category page and no separate page is necessary, or even desirable (redirects and [[:Catgory:Foo]] are just something you live with). For complex things like Category:Booze or Locations, it's preferable that most of the data be presented on separate pages which are linked to from the category page. In the case of Elements, I would say that it's large and complex enough to merit it's own separate page.--Gymnosophist 17:54, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • On plurization of categories, categories should almost always be in plural form. Categories generally consist of collections of things. The only exceptions seem to be more abstract things like Administration, Help and Needs Work. My personal preferance would be to change Foo Strategy to Foo Strategies, but I can live with things as they are. --Gymnosophist 17:54, 22 August 2006 (CDT)

General Comments

Here's some notes on proposed category changes...some of them are bigger projects than others.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:18, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

  • I've added to, reordered, reformatted, tweaked and generally tinkered with Dehstil's original edits here - I hope he approves. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
  • I'll reiterate that, from a historical perspective, Wiki policy has been that categories should be viewed as organization mechanisms of last resort. If information can be more usefully organized by the use of a page or a table, than that is the preferred organization mechanism. For various past discussions on categories, see here, here, here, here and here. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Honestly, categories were designed, created, and used as an organizable construct, and as long as that construct is clear, defined, and not half-baked or easily done by certain types of articles. For example, a category for items available in the general store is useless because of the general store article. On the other hand, for me, a category can't be replaced by a plain table with each item's attributes listed next to it and shouldn't. They both have their uses and can and should coexist.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • The official Wikipedia policy on Catagories vs. list (table) treatment is worth reading. Obviously, categories and tables can should coexist. But this doesn't mean that for every table there should be a corresponding category and visa versa. Clearly, there are situations in which information should be solely organized in tabular form, just as there are situations in which information should be solely organized in category form. Your expressed preference for sifting through categories seems to be a peculiarly personal preference, and is not something that should become a Wiki policy. Wikipedia urges restrain in the overusing categories because "categories become less effective the more there are on a given article". In particular, Wikipedia emphasizes that categories should be on major topics that are likely to be useful to someone reading the article (italics from Wikipedia). Our historical policy on categories essentially mirrors the Wikipedia policy. --Gymnosophist 09:42, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
      • "a category can't be replaced by a plain table" That was rather naive of me to say. Revise that to "not all categories" or "certain useful categories" which you are, by no means, trying to argue in a table for, maybe. ;)--Dehstil (t|c) 17:23, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
  • On Misc "Crafting" Categories, all categories should be treated the same (with the possible exception of Combines. Whatever option we choose, whether if be to dissolve the categories, or to use just Components categories, or use both Components and Final Crafted categories, or mix Components and Final Crafted into a single category, all Misc "Crafting" Categories should receive identical treatment. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Hmm, maybe we should have Misc "Crafting" Categories. Also, Crafting Product categories or an overall category should be considered.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Can you elaborate with more specificity? --Gymnosophist 09:42, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
      • Well, do we just want the components in a crafting category or do we have a products category or do we have one big category?--Dehstil (t|c) 17:23, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
      • I'm still not clear as to what it is that you're proposing. My own feeling, as laid out above, is that all Misc "Crafting" categories should be dissolved in favor of individual pages. --Gymnosophist 13:28, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
  • What and How. I think that without exception every item is categorized as to what it is (weapon, food, misc, etc.). However, we are inconsistant as to catagorizing how an item is obtained. Sometimes we do (Drops, NPC Buys, etc.) and sometime we don't (combined items, Jewelrymaking items, cooked items, supertinkered items, etc.). I would submit that we should be consistant with how categories - either we categorize all the ways that items are obtained, or we categorize none of them. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • We've already made a start at and item's source through, crafting categories, drops, npc buys, etc.; it just needs a little more work.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • I'd prefer not to back into a general policy by first deciding on individual cases. Instead, I'd rather set the larger policy and then consider individual cases. In this case, the larger question is how we should treat the categorization of the various ways in which items are obtained. --Gymnosophist 09:42, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
      • Ok, we could create pages similar to Item Drops (By Location), but they'll need work updating. I remember trying make sure "Item Drops (By Location)" was up to date, added a few, and gave up.--Dehstil (t|c) 17:23, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
      • The more I think about it, the more I think that the "how" categories should be dissolved. There are really only two, Drops and NPC Buys (plus Toys), but they really aren't of much use. --Gymnosophist 13:28, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
  • My general philosophy is that categories should be used primarily to provide useful connections between things to the user, and second..arily to vaguely group the information in the wiki. I think that one instance of the secondary use should be present on every page, simply so that, at a glance, it can be determined what the heck this page is talking about. It can occasionally be difficult for the sleep-deprived first-time wiki user and KoL newbie to determine if Hardcore Skill Analysis, just as an example, is supposed to be the strategy page which it is, or is supposed to be a comprehensive skills list ordered by some obscure game mechanics thing which said user hasn't encountered yet in limited gameplay. Categorizing the page as strategy does help, and in general can help weary wiki editors know approximately where a page falls in the wiki's vast territory.

    Once we've gotten past this, though, I think categories should be used to group stuff in a way that is helpful to the player. Category:Candy, for instance, does nothing for the player except insult their intelligence, while Category:Meatsmithing Components can tell the player "Hey, cool, I can try tenderizing Goat Cheese, of all things. Wow!" --Alpaca (T/C) 15:06, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • I will second this, except that I think there's room for "interesting connections that reveal the creativity of the designers" in addition to "useful connections that help me win faster". This is why I like the Saucepans category--because it's amusing to me that in a game where Sauceror is a primary class, there are only two Saucepan weapons?? Weird. And therefore funny. And I wouldn't have found out about it any other way if someone hadn't been anal enough to list it here. HAVING SAID THAT, I will also say that the fastest way to get me to agree that a category is useless is to show that the information exists directly on a main page somewhere else. The value of categories to the type of information that we are collecting is that they make lists-with-automatic-backlinks-to-the-entries very easy. As soon as the information grows beyond what one link per item can handle, and the list graduates to a main page with a table or more informational listing, then yes, the category generally becomes superfluous. The Wikipedia policy doesn't necessarily apply here because it seems to me that we place a much higher value on displaying all interconnections, and categories-as-list-builders are much more useful for that purpose. --Jonrock 23:31, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
      • P.S. Ar-dahrr, there's that list of Passive skills I was looking for up above, so consider that need fulfilled. I'll go put on my Furry Suit tattoo now. --Jonrock 23:31, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

Category:Quest Items

Quest Rewards, etc.

The Category:Quest Items is something of a peculiar category. In one sense, it's very clear as to what items belong in the category; whatever is marked in-game as a Quest Item goes in the category. These are all items that are removed from your inventory upon ascension. However, the usefulness of the category is somewhat limited. The category is an assemblage of a variety of different types of things: quest rewards (Boss Bat bandana, etc.), things needed in order to get a quest reward (64735 scroll, etc.), things needed in order to start a quest Dr. Hobo's map, etc.), things needed in order to get to the next stage of a quest (hang glider, etc.), and a few oddball items (KWE-brand transistor radio, rat whisker, etc). There are also a number of items that are quest related that are not included here, mostly quest rewards (shiny ring, etc.), but also a few things needed in order to get a quest reward (zombie pineal gland, etc.). It feels like we may be missing something here. We do have the information available in a piecemeal fashion on the individual quest pages, but nowhere do we have a listing of all possible quest rewards. I'd like to propose that we address this. Naturally, given my inclination towards tables :), I'd like to propose that we make a series of articles on quest rewards, etc., with each article having a table. Thoughts?

  • Can't hurt, but it's already fairly easy to find out what kind of quest items there are though. The reason "Category:Quest Items" and "Category:Gift Items" exist is because they're in-game type descriptors.--Dehstil (t|c) 22:14, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Yes, but there are a number of things that aren't included in the "Category:Quest Items". Having an article/page would address that.--Gymnosophist 18:52, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

Collections of Quest Items

  • Contrary to the text in the Category:Quest Items page (which needs to be clarified), roughly a third of all quest items actually exist in peoples collections. Some of these are legacy pre-ascension items, honestly collected, but others have been collected by some sort of jiggery-pokery (i.e. "hacking"). I'm wondering if some sort of collection explanation should be added to quest items that have been collected. --Gymnosophist 10:51, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Additionally, when looking at quest items, I'm never sure if items without collection sections are really uncollected items, or if it's the case that the collection section has been forgotten. I went through the Wiki quest items and Jicken Wings Display Case Database to check. I did find a few (three) items that were missing their collection (I'll fix these later), as well as one item with the collection section section but no collection (bowl of oriole's nest soup). It seems to me that we should have some way of showing that something really doesn't have a collection, perhaps in the Notes section. --Gymnosophist 10:51, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
  • How about, by default, quest items don't have a collection section and it's implied that a quest item is uncollected. For exceptions to that case, we put:
    This item was collected by means of _____
    <collection>item name</collection>
    --Dehstil (t|c) 17:44, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
  • As an addition, I recently added the collection for the pile of shiny pebbles as it was missing from the Wiki even though Mr. Magnifico has a collection of one. Since this item was added after display cases refused quest items, it was obviously added by untraditional means. I think it would be best to be consistent and have the collection section for all items whether or not a collection exists. In this way, any future "hacks" that cause quest items to be placed into collections will be accounted for. I agree with the above, however, that there should be a note that says whether or not the items were added before or after the display case quest item change, but I wouldn't go into specifics in those notes unless we actually have the details and they apply to all instances of display cases. Finally, I hope all that made sense. --Fryguy9 14:58, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
  • On the "by default, quest items don't have a collection section and it's implied that a quest item is uncollected" idea, this doesn't address the unease that is experienced when viewing a page without a collection - is there really no collection, or was the collection omitted in error? I think I like the idea of having "the collection section for all items whether or not a collection exists". I'm also in agreement with Fryguy9's thoughts on the collection notes. --Gymnosophist 18:11, 22 August 2006 (CDT)

Physical resistance

there are now multipul areas where the monsters have physical resistance. I think we need to add a physical to the elemental script so that it fits better into the templates. --Univector llama 12:43, 30 August 2006 (CDT)

  • Well not as an element, the ghost miner has an elemental resistance to spooky and the queen to cold. We could add stuff like ten-leaf clover and once per ascension, ultra-rare, etc while we're at it, if we do that, maybe.--Dehstil (t|c) 19:28, 30 August 2006 (CDT)

More X by numbers

Does anyone have interest in there being an "NPC Stores by ID" or by number, or by [insert indentifying somethingorother here], since most (not all stores) can be identified by .../store.php?whichstore=X where X is a number or letter. Ex: ( 1 -> The Shadowy Store, b -> The Bugbear Bakery, m -> The Market, etc., etc., etc.? --JRSiebz (|§|) 03:05, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

  • Created NPC Stores.--Dehstil (t|c) 19:23, 9 February 2007 (CST)

Does anyone have interest in there being an "Choice Adventures by Number" page, since they are (almost all) identifiable via .../choice.php?whichchoice=X where X is a number, Ex: 2 -> Denim Axes Examined, ..., 47 -> Have a Heart, ..., 72 -> Lording Over The Flies, etc.? --JRSiebz (|§|) 03:05, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

  • Interesting, we could put that somewhere, wonder why it was implemented like that.--Dehstil (t|c) 14:48, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
  • With .../choice.php?whichchoice=X&option=Y, Y is the number of the option chosen, usually 1, 2, or 3 {depending on the number of choices given).--JRSiebz (|§|) 02:56, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
    • They'd both be nice additions - go for it! --Gymnosophist 13:12, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
  • I started it at Choice Adventures by Number, but it raises a few question (and maybe annswers some others) about the Violet Fog adventures and the Heart of Darkness/Felonia adventure(s), and if/how they should be divvied up. See the talk page for details. --JRSiebz (|§|) 17:38, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

Adventure Choice Templates

Moved from TheKolWiki:Pages for deletion:

The Adventure Choice templates are outsized, unnecessary (the Cove/Mine/Slope locations have all this information), and they don't fit the Wiki look and feel. --Gymnosophist 19:00, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

  • I actually like them; I remember finding them useful when going for outfits. The location pages do have this information, but these psuedo navigational templates seem just as or a little bit more useful than some other navigational templates we've had. (Not sure what you mean by wiki look and feel). You do have a point about them being biggish though. Perhaps we could reformat (and switch up to match wiki feel) them and readd/complete the series.--Dehstil (t|c) 19:46, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
    • Adjust their look and feel if you don't like how they appear. But the information summarized on those adventure pages is invaluable in planning which choice to take when you're there. They're not on all the choice places because when I made them I only had a little bit of time. They need to be formatted better. I'm pretty sure I stated that when I made them. But they need to become a standard, not get deleted. --jin 02:37, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
      • OK, we won't delete them. But I'll be darned if I know what to do with them. We can work on making them smaller so that they won't dominate whatever page they're on. But I feel uneasy with them being on the individual adventure pages. They're really inaccessible there. It almost makes more sense to put them on the appropriate outfit page. And, again, all the information is on the appropriate location page, which is more accessable. But if we decide to keep them in the individual adventure pages, let's at least move them more towards the bottom of the page, so that they don't break up the adventure page as much. BTW, when I said that that they don't fit the Wiki look and feel, what I meant was that we generally avoid using templates, especially large ones, and instead favor a textual approach whan possible, thereby giving the pages a certain "svelte" appearance. --Gymnosophist 16:15, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
        • Hrm, well the original Visual KoL successful because of a visual approach, tablifying recipes mainly, maybe. ;)--Dehstil (t|c) 16:31, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
          • I disagree with you entirely, Gymno. They are much more accessible on the individual adventure pages. When I encounter a choice adventure and can't recall what each choice will get me I select and copy the adventure name at the top of the KoL page. Then I paste it into thekolwiki search box and go straight to that adventure. Now, in any area where we have more than one choice adventure, I'm quite likely to shortly thereafter encounter ANOTHER choice adventure. Rather than having to repeat the process, if all that information is in a nifty little template right there on the page, it makes life much easier. There's no reason those pages have to ONLY show the full text of their own adventure. Making the pages navigationally useful is a benefit. Otherwise, there's no point other than recordkeeping to have them there. The adventure text is in the game too... And I've generally just encountered it when I come to the wiki looking for the corresponding page. It's also more accessible on the adventure page, because then I don't have to search for "The extreme slope" when maybe it's just "extreme slope" here on the wiki. I don't necessarily have the exact name of the area close at hand. The visual/tabular approach makes it easier to understand at a glance, which is the whole point of having a kick-ass spoiler site, we're better than the rest. We shouldn't HAVE to read 5 paragraphs to figure out the information we need.... That's the whole reason I started the VKoL sites, and what this grew from. I think we should try to make things easy to find and understand, and these templates are a step in that direction. --jin 19:32, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
            • Point taken. What would you think about moving the template further down the page? --Gymnosophist 20:31, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
              • Those are typically VERY long pages, which is why I stuck them where I did. Give the summary, and then go into the details. Rather than scrolling past all the details to see the summary.... I'm all for making it smaller/sleeker, definitely; that has needed to be done since I made them. I'm just not at all up to date on all the fancy wiki styling y'all have been doing. Any particular reason you want the summaries at the bottom? --jin 00:15, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
                • I just like to scroll, I guess.  :) Actually, I didn't like it because it broke up the standard order of the page, but I can live with it. I'll just have to work on not being so anal about stuff! Ironically, I was argueing elsewhere, that the Notes section should be moved up because important information was being buried at the bottom of the page (check out the Comma Chameleon for an extreme example). --Gymnosophist 16:40, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
  • All of the choices for every choice adventure in a location DO NOT belong under EVERY choice adventure. If reformatting the primary location page would be useful that would be fine, but these templates are inappropriately huge for the individual adventure pages. --Jonrock 14:27, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
    • Who says what belongs where? Time and us discussing. This information happens to have a use on the individual pages. If they're big and cumbersome, perhaps we should work on a succinct way to make them more unobtrusive. (And by unobtrusive, I mean something other than removal.)--Dehstil (t|c) 20:22, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
      • OK, that's fine. All I'm asking is that a change be acknowledged as a change so that my sense of "how to make things look right" doesn't get whipsawed. I really do think that the effort to be utterly comprehensive about cataloging the interactions of the game are making it more complicated to use the wiki to get only the information needed to make decisions while playing the game. --Jonrock 21:52, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

{{Element}} in Game Mechanics

The existing 'standard' in the various Game Mechanics pages regarding elemental damage/resistance was to bold and color the element name only, leaving the word "damage" or "resistance" unformatted. With {{Element}}, however, elemental damage can be automatically formatted the same way it appears in item enchantments (with both the element name and 'Damage' colored and linked), and resistance can be easily made to work the same way (complete with a section link to 'Resistance'). For consistency, I would argue that the element names should not be bolded unless the entire enchantment is also made bold. Opinions? --Quietust 13:33, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

  • For starters, we're picking the smallest of nits here. But it's become an issue, so here goes:
  • The elements have been in bold in order to accentuate them and to differentiate them from other bits of information in the tables. Some elements, Stench, and especially Spooky, can be hard to see without bolding. For example, look at the spooky hockey mask in the Elemental Resistance table. It's clear that the mask gives Spooky resistance, but it's very hard to see by the formatting that the mask gives Spooky damage. Similarly, it's easy to miss the fact that Stenchtastic gives Stench damage as well as Stench resistance. Hot being in bold differentiates it from the unbolded red text used on detrimental effects like the makeshift SCUBA gear's -10 Melee damage in the same Elemental Resistance table. Unbolded Cold and Sleaze can be confused for each other, as well as linked text. Cold and Sleaze in bold are more visually distinct.
  • Coloring only the Element name and not the following text (damage, resistance) is probably best supported for aesthetic reasons. Spooky damage just looks better and fits in better in the tables than do Spooky damage, Spooky damage or Spooky damage.
  • Using the template is a good thing, and is something that I should have done, but in a way that incorporates the formatting described above.
  • Finally, consistancy is all well and good, and is something that I'm usually very anal about, but, as stated above, it shouldn't trump the fact that the real goal is to "make things easy to find and understand". I think that "Spooky damage" does this better than "Spooky damage" does. --Gymnosophist 15:54, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
  • It appears that opposition to the "Spooky damage" approach has ebbed, so, barring further demurrals, I'll implement it (using the template) in a few days. --Gymnosophist 00:21, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
    • First, "grey" appears as green in IE, so use "gray" ;-); second, instead of <font color="gray">Spooky</font> use <span style="color: gray;">Spooky</span>, the wiki declares itself as "XHTML 1.0 Transitional", so we should act as such ;-) --JRSiebz (|§|) 00:53, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
      • Hmm - grey = green - sounds like typical MIcrosoft! I never noticed, as I use Firefox, but it's really a moot issue. I used a font approach here in discussion, but will be using the template in the actual edits. But thanks for the info. I confess that I often feel dreadfully antiquated, working on legacy desktop stuff as I do... --Gymnosophist 01:20, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
      • Bad XHTML 1.0 Transitional is the reason my bot fails. Also, I'd rather they were unbolded unless bolded in-game, which means I prefer using the element template's style, but eh, whatever you want, if you're the one writing the page.--Dehstil (t|c) 20:18, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
        • I changed the above grey/font to gray/span. I can see why IE users were freaking! On bold/no bold, I'll reiterate that I think that functionality should be preferred over "a foolish consistency". And, come to think about it, I think that all in-game elemental text is bolded, so that unbolded usage would be "non-standard". Any other thoughts? --Gymnosophist 22:20, 11 September 2006 (CDT)


  • Would a wikipedia style note like the one I added to The Apathetic Lizardman be something we would aim for?
    Edit: Such notes should be avoided and only used in moderation of course. "The Apathetic Lizardman" would normally redirect to "apathetic lizardman" and occasionally the limerick reader might be interested in the apathetic lizardman in other contexts.--Dehstil (t|c) 00:39, 7 September 2006 (CDT)
    • Should all disambiguated pages have some sort of message on them?--Dehstil (t|c) 23:29, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
      • I'd been avoiding this because it's such a potential can of worms. Most disambiguation sets on the disambiguation list already have cross links, usually because they are skill/effect pairs. Adding a Wikipedia style note just gunks up the those pages. The non effect/skill pages (Barrrnacle, Best Foods, Cola, Ice-cold beer, Item Drops, Kneatly Knicking the Knapsack, Mimic, NPC, PM, She's So Unusual, The Big Scary Place, The Prince of Wishful Thinking, Treasure!, Zmobie, Zombie) are either already cross linked or there is no need for disambiguation backlinking. If a user is using the search function, then they will be directed to the disambiguation page and then go on to the page they're interested in and there is no need for backlinking. If the user got to a page by clicking a link, then they are where should be and again there is no need for backlinking. The Apathetic Lizardman situation is probably best solved by renaming the The Apathetic Lizardman page to The Apathetic Lizardman (Limerick Dungeon) (as is done elsewhere). What we really, really don't want is to have to start disambiguating every glove and mushroom in the game! In short, I say no to disambiguation backlinking!  :) --Gymnosophist 01:59, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
      • How about links between snowmen and the like. When I cut and paste from in-game, I sometimes want the other versions of snowmen too. Or should those be disambiguation pages too/instead?--Dehstil (t|c) 17:21, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
      • There are also 4 A Chewy Encounters in South of the Border. --JRSiebz (|§|) 20:44, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
        • Yes, but see, you can just click on Occurs at South of the Border. and it will take you to the page where you can see which encounter drops which type of gum. Isn't that all the backlinking we need in cases like those? --LucySpace (Talk|Cntrbs) 23:04, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
          • I agree with LucySpace. But while we're on the subject, I think we should probably rename the gum adventures to A Chewy Encounter (Pickle), etc., the mimcs to mimic (Barrel), etc, the Apathetic Lizardman as discussed above, and the five haiku challenge adventures in The Haiku Dungeon to The Haiku Dungeon (Pudgy Caucasian), etc. There don't seem to be any natural descriptive names to give to the ninjas, but you can just click back to the location. And yes, disambiguation pages should be made for all these (except for the mimic, who already has one). This will standardize all the ambiguous adventures to conform to the standard set with Kneatly Knicking the Knapsack, She's So Unusual, The Big Scary Place, The Prince of Wishful Thinking, and Treasure!. --Gymnosophist 03:31, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
            • Hmm - the The Haiku Dungeon has a bunch of ambigious adventures that should probably be reworked. for example, Haiku Dungeon in the Fall should probably be split into Haiku Dungeon in the Fall (Old Bones) and Haiku Dungeon in the Fall (Kick Ass). --Gymnosophist 13:56, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
      • There are also 3, though slightly different, Orcish Frat Boys in the Orcish Frat House. --JRSiebz (|§|) 22:53, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
  • I've finished doing the "old-style" disambiguation for all the same-name adventures (except for the apathetic lizardman). Yee-haa - what a pain in the keister!. On the original style question which was illustrated with The Apathetic Lizardman, I'm not sure that we ever definitively resolved this. It did seem that there may have been consensus that this approach was not supported, but I didn't want to revert the page based just on the discussion so far. --Gymnosophist 22:56, 21 October 2006 (CDT)
  • It occurs to me that, since we last had some movement on this discussion, we've had a new wave of (mostly) gift items that have been "cloned" off of existing game elements (mostly familiars, monsters and KWE wrestlers) - the Cocoabo and the stuffed cocoabo, mind flayer and the stuffed mind flayer, Thorny Toad and Thorny Toad trading card, etc. Do we want to implement some sort of special crosslinkage between the "cloned" item and the ingame element that provided the inspiration for the item? Perhaps just something as simple as some notes in the Notes section: "This monster has served as the inspiration for the stuffed mind flayer." and "This item was inspired by the mind flayer monster." Personally, I'm in favor of something like this. Thoughts? --Gymnosophist 23:20, 21 October 2006 (CDT)

Bullet Indent Style

Please note that the standard bullet indent style is ::*. For example, the Locations page, one of the oldest and most heavily used pages in the Wiki uses this style, as does every other page that I'm aware of. --Gymnosophist 21:46, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

  • Again, I find myself wondering why the standard for multi-level bulleted lists is to use :::* instead of **** - the latter has the advantage of automatically switching bullet styles to make each level distinct. Just because one style is used everywhere does not make it a standard; Established Standards is there for a reason - if you want this to be an official standard, document it there. --Quietust 22:38, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
    • There are many things that are de facto standards that are not included in the formal established standards, this being one of them. If you would like to make a change to standards, the appropriate thing to do is to discuss it, not to make a change by fiat. --Gymnosophist 22:45, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
      • The change in the bullet style on the Locations page was made LESS THAN ONE MONTH AGO. BY YOU. Please to not be insulting our intelligences. --Jonrock 23:00, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
        • Hmm - I completely forgot I did that. I guess I was standardizing the location page to, for example Ascension#The Basics, Defend the Gourd Quest, etc. But in researching further, I see that other pages do in fact use the **** style, so the :::* isn't as much of a "standard" as I thought it was. But this is a perfect opportunity to establish a standard. Obviously, I prefer the :::* style, as I think it has a cleaner look, but it's not something that I feel that strongly about. Here's hoping that your intelligences are uninsulted. --Gymnosophist 23:31, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
        • I prefer to actually nest lists. :::* creates some illogical html. If you want that space after a nested list indent, do it in the css.--Dehstil (t|c) 23:38, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
          • For  :::*, I'm not sure what illogical html means, or what it's consequences are - can you explain? It's worth noting that both Wikipedia and MediaWiki use a style that is visually similar to :::*. --Gymnosophist 01:00, 29 September 2006 (CDT)
            • If you write the lists like
              then the html comes out as
              ie the subitem is nested within the main item. However if you do
              then the html comes out as
              ie the subitem is semantically separated from the main item. <dl> is a "definition list", which is abused by MediaWiki to get an indentation effect - the real use for it is as a dictionary, or a glossary, like
              which comes out as
              and has nothing semantically to do with nesting lists. You'll also notice that since this message is all on one line in the source for the page, the blockquotes above are nested within the <li> tag, as they semantically should be. Phlip 02:07, 29 September 2006 (CDT)
              • Phlip, thanks for the thorough exegesis. But, despite your explanation, I don't see that this abuse of canonical html has any meaningful consequences. Am I not understanding something? Perhaps I'm something of an apostate, but I'm generally more concerned with what a visiter to the site actually sees on the screen than I am with the work that goes on "backstage". Thanks again for your help in educating me. --Gymnosophist 02:48, 29 September 2006 (CDT)
                • This is a good article on the subject, though it talks about headers, as opposed to lists. Using correct markup for lists is also a Priority 2 Accessibility Guideline. Don't assume that all users are getting the page content by looking at a graphical web browser. Phlip 04:20, 29 September 2006 (CDT)
                  • Hmmm, web accessibility issues. I guess I'd better submit or risk being branded as incorrigibly un-P.C.  :) Thanks again for all your help. --Gymnosophist 12:38, 29 September 2006 (CDT)


Would a nav template like this be acceptable for crafting related pages?--Dehstil (t|c) 21:03, 1 October 2006 (CDT)

  • Kind of big...but I guess since there are no other navigational templates on those pages it could be okay....--SomeStranger (t|c) 22:08, 1 October 2006 (CDT)
    • Category:Crafting Items sorta does this, but not to very well at the moment. I do like how all the things involved in cooking are easily identifiable and all the things involved in meatsmithing are easily identifiable. More of a table approach vs. category where this one is slightly more visual.--Dehstil (t|c) 22:29, 1 October 2006 (CDT)
      • I'm not sure about the overall utility of the template, or, indeed, what its purpose is. Is it meant to provide a comprehensive set of links to all major crafting pages? If so, it should probably include the five pages already included in the "Template" on the Cocktailcrafting page (Drink Categories, Drinking Mechanics, etc.). Also, the Cocktailcrafting section includes both Superhuman Cocktailcrafting and the area that the skill grants access to , Nash Crosby's Still, while the Cooking section includes The Wok of Ages, but not Transcendental Noodlecraft, which grants access. Similarily, The Malus of Forethought is included, but not the Pulverize skill which grants access. Perhaps instead of a crafting template, we should have a "How To Make Things" page that lists all these things. Also, I couldn't help but notice that we treat each of the three major crafts differently: Cocktailcrafting has a small umbrella page that links to a number of sub-pages that are well crosslinked. Cooking has a large main page that also includes information that roughly corresponds to the Cocktailcrafting sub-page, Drink Categories, as well as a bunch of other pages (Best Foods (adventures), etc. that are poorly crosslinked. Smithing also has a large main page Meatsmithing, but poorly links to other smithing pages. What would be nice to see is some standardization, perhaps based on the Cocktailcrafting model, which seems to have the best organizational approach (even though the Cocktailcrafting page should be changed to include Advanced Cocktailcrafting, Superhuman Cocktailcrafting, and Nash Crosby's Still). I hope you don't think I'm being too harsh towards your idea. You definitely identified an area of need, I just had a different take on it. --Gymnosophist 22:33, 1 October 2006 (CDT)
      • I just copied recipe; perhaps that needs changing too? As for strategy info, I'd rather leave that out on this one, having this one simply outline crafting mechanics.--Dehstil (t|c) 22:40, 1 October 2006 (CDT)
        • No, I don't think that recipe needs changing, instead, I think that {{craft}}, if used, might need to be changed in order to prevent the sort of confusion that I experienced when I looked at it closely. The question of leaving out the stategies (and skills) goes back to the question of the template's purpose - what should it be? In other words, is what we're doing maximizing the helpfulness of the site to site visiters (is it best fulfilling our "mission statement")? What do you think of the "How To Make Things" page idea and the idea to standardize the big three crafting areas? --Gymnosophist 23:15, 1 October 2006 (CDT)
        • I think cramming stratgy links into the nav template would make it incompreshensible. If you're talking about a full-blown "Let's Make Stuff" page, then more info the better. I was focusing more on the linkage between ways to make things.--Dehstil (t|c) 23:21, 1 October 2006 (CDT)
          • You may be right, but if so, then it sounds like all the more reason to go with a full-blown "Let's Make Stuff" page. As a template with strategy links is confusing to you, and a template without strategy links is confusing to me, it may be that the template approach is irredeemably flawed. Even if there were a template that everyone were happy with, I think that the "Let's Make Stuff" page approach has several significent advantages over the template approach. Also, I think the "big three" standardization should be implemented in any event. --Gymnosophist 23:38, 1 October 2006 (CDT)
  • This a navigational template listing and linking between the different available crafts in the game. Should the grouping of "crafts" have a category, page, or template? I'd support the template idea, I'd like a positive response on which approach to take before doing so. The aforementioned "Let's Make Stuff" page would be lengthy and redundant since this vast amount of information is already on the constituent pages in the grouping. A list/category or a navigational template would seem more appropriate to me.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:42, 24 January 2007 (CST)
  • Ok, I was waiting a few votes. I got one at Template talk:Craft, but I'll a little while longer to see if there are still any problems with it.--Dehstil (t|c) 22:31, 27 January 2007 (CST)

Braving the Elements

Hot (and all the element pages) are in need of a revamp (I'll use Hot as an example in this discussion). The use of elements in the game has been increasing, and have been implemented in increasingly complex ways, but these pages haven't kept pace. For starters, the Codex of Capsaicin Conjuration, Flaregun, plastic pumpkin bucket all belong on the Hot page but don't really fit in any of the existing sections. This is really only the tip of the iceberg! :) Hot powder/nuggets/wad all need some sort of discussion, as does Hot Breath, Hotform (and Coldform and Spookyform, both vulnerable to Hot), Spirit of Cayenne and Immaculate Seasoning. Further, the pages don't do a very good job of differentiating between effects from skills and effects from items. The Resistance from Items section includes both Astral Shell (from a skill) and Hot Blooded (from an item). The Damage Given From Effects includes both Flaming Weapon (from an item) and Spirit of Cayenne (from a skill). It's not obvious what effects have to be "earned" and what effects you can just pick up at the mall. Also, there's no indication of what is melee damage and what is spell damage. At any given time, people generally focus on doing one or the other, but they can't tell which is which from these pages. Finally, the monster section needs some sort of improvement. It shows all monsters that deal Hot damage, irrespective of wheather or not the monsters are truly Hot monsters. For example, the Knob Goblin Harem Girl occasionally deals Hot damage but, unlike Hot monsters, is not vulnerable to sleaze (in fact, just the opposite!). Finally, it might be nice to have some sort guide as to adventuring that focuses on optimal elemental orientation by location, perhaps in a new article. Thoughts? --Gymnosophist 01:02, 3 October 2006 (CDT)

  • I've gotten to work on the monster part, but there are a few exceptions as to how often they deal elemental damage. Plus, a few that probably need confirmation.--Dehstil (t|c) 16:48, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
  • TODO:Find a place to list physically-resistant monsters. It doesn't count as an element since Snow Queen is cold and a ghost-type (I hope "ghost" is proper terminology othewise, I suppose "physically-resistant" is good).--Dehstil (t|c) 16:52, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
    • I like the monster work so far. Great idea on the ghosts as well. --Gymnosophist 22:07, 3 October 2006 (CDT)

Clan Stuff Category

With the addition of the Clan Rumpus Room, Category:Clan Stuff has become very cluttered. I think it shouyld become two categories, the first something like "Clan Features" or "Clan Hall Furnishings" (Message Board, Rumpus Room, Roster, Stash, etc.) and the second being "Clan Furnishings". "Rumpus Room Furnishings". "Clan Rumpus Room Furnishings" (optional stuffs in Rumpus Room). I like the shorter ones. Though the longer ones are more specific. --JRSiebz (|§|) 01:08, 18 October 2006 (CDT)

  • Yes, let's split this up. "Clan Features" or "Clan Hall Furnishings" (I like this one) is fine for the first category but for the second category, I think "Rumpus Room Furniture" should be used instead of "Rumpus Room Furnishings" because the ingame Rumpus Room description is Furniture (even though Furnishings is a much better descriptor) and because it will help provide some differentiation between Rumpus Room stuff and Clan Hall stuff. --Gymnosophist 16:27, 18 October 2006 (CDT)
    • "Clan Hall Furnishings" is fine (since it's already created :P).--Dehstil (t|c) 12:33, 19 October 2006 (CDT)
  • Hmm - I just noticed that the Clans page is really named Clan Hall ingame. We should rename the page, but I'm not sure if we should calve off the clan part of it into it's own page. --Gymnosophist 19:11, 18 October 2006 (CDT)
    • I keep being tempted to link to Clan Hall a bunch already. Clan Hall != Clan, so it seems you're right. ;-) --JRSiebz (|§|) 22:52, 18 October 2006 (CDT)
    • Whoops. After a minor screwup, I did all the rumpus room stuff.--Dehstil (t|c) 12:27, 19 October 2006 (CDT)

Image Upload Problems?

A significant number of image uploads recently have been failing for some unknown reason. Notable examples include stuffyoyo.gif, heartright.gif, as well as w_1.gif through w_12.gif. What's going on? --Quietust 09:57, 19 October 2006 (CDT)

  • Actually, when I was uploading runmpus images, it "uploaded" but the image wasn't showing up on its image page, I waited a few minutes and them it showed up after a refresh and I could use it. I think it may be a caching thing, but usually if you carry on and include it on pages as if all is fine, in a few minutes it resolves itself. --JRSiebz (|§|) 16:21, 19 October 2006 (CDT)
  • I notice this on thumbnail/resized images too ([[File:filename|widthpx]]). They first show up as dead images, then after a few minutes and a page refresh (save or preview) they show up. I have also noticed the new users cannot sign up for the wiki, because like when thumb/resized images are generated, the CAPTCHA images are not being generated and shown. The probably would if you could wait a bit and then refresh the page, but refreshing the page shows a different image, so the problems is always there. Whatever is generating images is either running too slow or low priority or the locations of the (newly made or uploaded) images are not being cached or propagating quickly enough. --JRSiebz (|§|) 17:35, 26 October 2006 (CDT)
  • The CAPTCHA images were fixed recently (as noted in the Coldfront forums), they broke due to the wiki software upgrade, so now we are getting our normal influx of newbies... oh goody! ;-) I still am getting the upload/thumbnail delay though. --JRSiebz (|§|) 21:17, 2 November 2006 (CST)
  • The culprit might be the fact that all images are actually at http://glacier.coldfront.net/kol/thekolwiki/images/ and http://glacier.coldfront.net/kol/thekolwiki/skins/monobook/ through a http redirect. I suggest only upload an image once and then just waiting until; it should show up in a matter of time hopefully. Another possibility is that certain hashes aren't working for some reason and re-uploading the image fixes it somehow, but I doubt it.--Dehstil (t|c) 18:21, 29 November 2006 (CST)
    • Yeah I've been uploading once, then waiting a few minutes and then using the image and all seems to be fine. When/after I uploaded the clan administration desk images, as i was doing incremental 'show previews' as i was creating the table (to make sure it was looking right), more and more of them began to show up as time went on, by the time i saved the page all the images I uploaded were no longer broken. So image uploads are not "instant". Just be patient until the path propagates or stuff re-caches or image:filename is associated with the upload, or whatever the delay is. --JRSiebz (|§|) 19:31, 29 November 2006 (CST)
    • Yeah for those that don't know what I'm talking about, I'll go more in-depth:
GET /thekolwiki/images/a/ab/Chrysalis.gif HTTP/1.1
HTTP/1.x 301 Moved Permanently
Host: kol.coldfront.net
Location: http://glacier.coldfront.net/kol/thekolwiki/images/a/ab/Chrysalis.gif

GET /kol/thekolwiki/images/a/ab/Chrysalis.gif HTTP/1.1
HTTP/1.x 302 Found
Host: glacier.coldfront.net
Location: http://www.coldfront.net/errors/404.htm

My theory is that images are moved to http://glacier.coldfront.net/kol/thekolwiki/images/ periodically while a rewrite rule automatically redirects all requests for kol.coldfront.net/thekolwiki/images/ to glacier.coldfront.net/thekolwiki/images/. Unfortunately, the image is still at kol.coldfront.net/thekolwiki/images/ for some time. Constantly reuploading may just perpetuate the image not showing up at worst or is at least annoying at best so... quit reuploading images; it doesn't do anything.--Dehstil (t|c) 00:30, 1 December 2006 (CST)

  • Maybe one of us should make the warning text on the main page larger and redder....anyways we can bug Mag/Frostbyghte about this on Monday. This wasn't happening before...--SomeStranger (t|c) 00:34, 1 December 2006 (CST)

Ok, it seems like this has been fixed. Was I right in what was going on or was it something else?--Dehstil (t|c) 23:59, 10 December 2006 (CST)

KWE Trading Cards, Other KWE Issues

There are a bunch of misc. issues to deal with on the new KWE trading cards:

  • We should probably make a template to use with the When Used section of the trading card pages (see The Grand Poo-Bah trading card for what we need).
  • We should probably make a new "KWE Fighters Trading Cards" category - this will mirror the existing Category:KWE Fighters.
  • Should we disambiguate the fighters and the fighter cards?
  • The new fighter images aren't viewable, as noted above.
  • The KWE fighters might make good candidate for the /Data page approach as discussed in Discussion/Infoboxes (although we don't need the infobox). The win/loss records are now in two places and change frequently. Using a /Data page will ensure that updates are current everywhere.
    • I've gone and created data pages for all of the KWE fighters to contain the win and loss counts, and I've linked these values into the KWE Fighter template and the Trading Card template. --Quietust (t|c) 16:35, 14 November 2006 (CST)
  • ...assuming that we actually get around to updating the fighter records. We haven't done a great job in keeping the KWE Tournaments and fighter records updated. What can we do to improve on this? Perhaps ask for volunteers to take "ownership" on this?
  • Late add - we should perhaps standardize on "Wrestlers" instead of using a mix of "Fighters" and "Wrestlers". Ingame usage uses both ("Fight Card", "fight times", "official underground fighting championships!" vs. "KWE (or Kingdom Wrestling Entertainment)", "select a wrestler"), but I'd say that most important usages use "wrestler". The Wiki also uses both "Fighters" or "Wrestlers" (Category:KWE Fighters vs. {{KWE list}}, Morbidda#Notes, etc.). I'd like to change the Category:KWE Fighters to Category:KWE Wrestlers.

--Gymnosophist 10:48, 19 October 2006 (CDT)

  • Could the current "when used" template be (easily) modified to include these, or would a new one be better? Since they are all usuable items, wouldnt; a nav template (though I am not a huge fan), or maybe just a page for KWE treading cards to link to (like see also KWE trading cards, etc.), since other categories have been being removed, I don't know if we need one for all the cards. --JRSiebz (|§|) 16:26, 19 October 2006 (CDT)
    • I like your KWE Trading Cards page - we can do a See Also for Morbidda trading card, etc. but these should get some sort of KWE category - maybe just use the existing Category:KWE Fighters (or Category:KWE Wrestlers)? --Gymnosophist 18:33, 19 October 2006 (CDT)
    • KWE Trading Cards is just an ugly version of Snowcones or Astral Cupcakes. Though I usually like pages to be singular, categories to be plural, and here's why. Lets say the page is called "KWE Trading Card". When pages/people link to it, they can say "I love this [[KWE Trading Card]]" or easy plural the page as "I love [[KWE Trading Card]]s", but when the page is "KWE Trading Cards", sure "I love [[KWE Trading Cards]]" works fine but the singular becomes a piped mess: "I love this [[KWE Trading Card|KWE Trading Cards]]". Does this make sense to anyone else. That's why (usually) I create pages as singular (Clan, Snowcone, Astral Cupcake, Enchantment, etc. [or other ones which could be]), but people always end up making them plural. I guess others just like them that way. Other thoughs: prob should be wrestlers not fighters. Cards aren't wrestlers, but cards ;-) --JRSiebz (|§|) 19:04, 19 October 2006 (CDT)
    • That makes sense. I vote for singular pages.--Dehstil (t|c) 19:09, 19 October 2006 (CDT)
      • On plural/singular list pages, I like them plural for the same reasons that catagories are plural - the page is a list/collection of things. I think that the utility of viewing a page that is harmoniously named outweighs the disutility of having to sometimes use piping, especially since the ratio of page views to piped links will probably be at least 1,000 to 1. But change it back if you like (which I guess means that Snowcones and Astral Cupcakes, etc. should be changed to Snowcone and Astral Cupcake, etc.; nevermind that I'd really, really hate it! :) ). On Fighters/Wrestlers, great - I'll change Category:KWE Fighters. On "Cards aren't wrestlers, but cards", I'm not sure what you mean - are you saying that Morbidda trading card, etc. shouldn't get a KWE category? (P.S. - I think that a wrestler from Stanford actually is a Card!  :) ) --Gymnosophist 19:32, 19 October 2006 (CDT)
      • Pages being "harmoniously" named is nice, too ;-) But there will end up being links to the singualr redirection page, there always does. Most people (except us) don't check to see if they are linking to a redirection page or not, just that it is a valid link (not red), and don't pipe their links. It doesn't really matter to me that much either, I'm just use to trying to avoid linking to redirected pages. But if you hate it we prob should do it.. j/k ;-) Stanford, harhar. Or maybe from St. Louis or Arizona. :-P By that I just meant that the wrestler cards should not be categorized as "KWE Wrestlers", because their trading cards, cards don't wrestle, they sit in dust sleaves in binders. ;-)--JRSiebz (|§|) 19:56, 19 October 2006 (CDT)
      • I thought about it like this: If I wanted to learn about cats on wikipedia, it'd take me to a page titled "cat", and I could go like, "I <3 [[cat]]s". Of course, the "cat" page has a lot more information about cats in general instead of just listing of other pages about cats.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:36, 22 October 2006 (CDT)
      • It looks like the official Wikipedia style for list pages is the plural form. --Gymnosophist 21:53, 22 October 2006 (CDT)
      • Hmm, ok, what about pages like Class which is sort of like a list.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:56, 22 October 2006 (CDT)
      • To me, Class looks like a list and quacks like a list, so it must be a list - do you think we can sneak in a page rename without JRSiebz noticing?  :) --Gymnosophist 22:04, 22 October 2006 (CDT)
      • Note, Trophy, Dungeons of Doom potion, and other so-called lists are somewhat understandably singular also. Either way, doesn't matter to me.--Dehstil (t|c) 20:16, 27 October 2006 (CDT)
      • I changed "Clans" to "Clan". I hope that's ok, since it's not a list at all...--Dehstil (t|c) 22:35, 1 November 2006 (CST)

Recap of currently open issues

  1. We really need to get the card template in place - we're starting to see a variety of implementations being used. Das Überkühlraum trading card looks the best so far - The Grand Poo-Bah trading card has too small a font. There's also Princess Rutabaga trading card, but I like the look of Das Überkühlraum.
  2. Let's decide, or at least talk about, using the /Data page approach. If we use it, it will need to be incorporated into the above card template.
  3. Instead of disambiguating the cards and the wrestlers, I'd like to suggest that we implement some sort of crosslinkage, as proposed above, at the end of Discussion#Disambiguation.
  4. We still need to get on top of the 8 day KWE tournament cycle - any volunteers?
  5. There's been a new navigational template created ({{KWE cards}}), but I'd rather that a See Also approach be employed, as discussed above.

--Gymnosophist 03:30, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

  • 1. I was waiting until I had a card before I (re)formatted them (so I could gank the KoL code for the bow then wikify/xhtmlify(stylify)/template it), but haven't had any luck at the Mr. Klaw yet. 2. I comment once on the "infobox sub-discussion page", but prob should again. The current approach assumes all templates which need the data have the variable named the same way, and it's difficult to easily get a single value out (without making things needlessly complicated by embedding a switch in a template variable, ick!) If using the template becomes more difficult than just doing it manually, it defeats the whole purpose of having the template. 3. "This monster has served as the inspiration for the stuffed mind flayer" or "This item was inspired by the mind flayer monster" sound kinda weird. Maybe a simpler note such as "There exists a [stuffed version] of this [monster|item|familiar|etc.]" (where the text "stuffed version" is the link or "This [plushie?] is based of the [monster|item|familiar|etc.]"? Those say the same thing, but without putting a song by Chicago in your head at the same time :-P 4. I don't bet on KWE at all, so I call "not it!". Maybe we should recruit someone to the the Kaiser of KWE Tournaments. 5. I created it in the spirit of {{KWE_list}} or {{tinyplastic1}}, but haven't used it yet. On a side note, {{ZAP Tiny Plastic Commons}} is the ugliest template ever! --JRSiebz (|§|) 17:02, 26 October 2006 (CDT)
Wrong! this is the ugliest template ever!--SomeStranger (t|c) 18:37, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

1. No luck here either. UPDATE - I broke down and bought and sent you one of those stupid Inndya cards so that you could "wikify/xhtmlify(stylify)/template it". Aren't I lazy!  :) 2. I haven't been following Infoboxes too closely, but it seems like they're proceeding nicely. For KWE wrestler records, it doesn't really matter how hideous the template is, as it's the data that will be updated every 8 days - this should be easy (unless I'm completely misunderstanding the whole thing). 3. Yeah, "inspiration" is kind of lame - I was just throwing something out there. I like your version - let's do it. (btw, I had Ian Dury And The Blockheads going through my head, not Chicago!  :) ). 4. Good idea. Maybe we should "advertise" on the front page for someone once Infoboxes get figured out and we have a card template in place. "Kaiser of KWE Tournaments" - I like it! (Although "Wrestler Wrangler" has a certain wring to it.  :) ). On the side note, I fixed the second ugliest template ever to follow SomeStrangers modified ({{ZAP Oyster Eggs}} example. 5. So how should we group/crosslink - a See Also section or the ({{KWE cards}} template? --Gymnosophist 04:52, 27 October 2006 (CDT)

I agree with the crosslinkage, etc. For the css font issues, just measure out the ems or change the font, if you need to. Maybe the whole could do for switching to that font...or maybe just that one part.--Dehstil (t|c) 20:18, 27 October 2006 (CDT)

  • We're almost done here. On 4) above, any objections to replacing the current main page plural help ad with an ad for a "Kaiser of KWE Tournaments" for maybe a week? On 5) above, can we get some feedback on this? --Gymnosophist 17:10, 14 November 2006 (CST)
    • I like to take part in old conversations. Anyway, obviously I took on the enormous task of getting the Tournament pages up to date. I would also like to volunteer to be the "Kaiser of KWE Tournaments". I would at least try to always update the records and get the payout information. Oh and to answer your other question, I quite like the template that is in place now. I'm not sure how crosslinkage could be done any better. --TheDotGamer 11:36, 19 January 2007 (CST)

Unnecessary Plural Template Usage

There have been some edits recently in which [[This Item]]s has been replaced with {{plural|This Item}}. These changes can have the effect of degrading the clarity of the sentence containing the plural. I think that the use of the plural template should be limited to multi drops, etc. The plural template should not ordinarily be used within a sentence. Using zombie pineal glands is clearer than is using zombie glands pineal, and using 334 scrolls ({{plural|334 scroll}}) is just pointless - why change it from 334 scrolls ([[334 scroll]]s)? Besides, every time a template is used, it adds an incremental burden in the Wiki. Why use them unnecessarily? --Gymnosophist 14:29, 6 November 2006 (CST)

The point I was adding them is that they're already used a lot. See Ten-leaf clover, Trophy, rolling & unrolling pins, Drunkenness, etc. Search for "plural" to find other pages. Pluralization of Mr. Accessory on the Mr. Store page was because the template was already used further down the page, in notes. Boss Bat Quest was because all the other bat pages seem to use sonars-in-a-biscuit. Mt. McLargeHuge Quest was saying what the rewards were - plural was already used in Defeat Felonia (since 3rd August). --Ryo Sangnoir 15:35, 6 November 2006 (CST)

  • The fact that the plural template has been misused in the past is not a reason to continue to misuse it in the present. As misuses are found, they should be removed. --Gymnosophist 15:45, 6 November 2006 (CST)
    • I think that Ryo was simply saying that he was following precedent. Since this is not explicitly talked about in the Established Standards, it would be reasonable to follow what those before you had done. Once huge template is removed in exchange for the /Data pages. I think that going back to using the template is actually better than choosing a random pluralization of the word.--SomeStranger (t|c) 16:33, 6 November 2006 (CST)
      • I wasn't blaming Ryo - it was perfectly reasonable to follow precedent. I was instead objecting to the indiscriminate use of the plural template. I disagree that using a template is better than using a "random pluralization". Correctly pluralizing something is simply a matter of using proper English, and you don't need a template to accomplish that. Why do you think that KoL pluralizations are preferable to proper English pluralizations? There are a number of KoL plurals that don't work well in the middle of a sentence. Such things as alpha-mail pantses, preciousss and double donalds are unhelpful in the proper understanding of what is being communicated. It's better to use proper English that clearly identifies what you are talking about. And for the large majority of times that the KoL plural matches the proper English plural, why bother to use a template - it's just an extra pain in the ass. The pending implementation of the /Data pages is beside the point - all the above points will continue to be true. --Gymnosophist 17:17, 6 November 2006 (CST)
        • In that case, I see what you mean. I had forgotten about the odd plurals that make little sense.--SomeStranger (t|c) 17:39, 6 November 2006 (CST)

Adventure Queue vs. Queue

  • Right now the page discussing the adventure queue is labeled queue. I think the page should be called adventure queue and receive a redirect from queue. Would the powers that be, if this make sense to them too, rename queue and make a redirect?--DirkDiggler 22:37, 9 November 2006 (CST)

Allowing for the paying of wiki pages

  • So I want to run a service where I charge people meat to make wiki pages. Why? cause some people love the idea of having a wiki much like mine, but know just enough about the internet to play KoL. There are many people out there who wouldn't even have the first clue of how to make a page, let alone anything like mine. I would just give these out, but it took me long enough just to get the first one made. This is basicly how computer repair shops get money, is off of the lazyness of people. Really, what harm could come of this?--Miatog 11:11, 16 November 2006 (PST)
  • This posting was occasioned by an exchange of ingame messages between Miatog and myself (Gymnosophist), the text of which is as follows:

Miatog: I see that You don't like my service that I was offering on the wiki. Is there some place in the TOS that I missed that said I can't do that? If so show me where and I will stop.

Gymnosophist: You're correct that this particular offense is missing from the TOS (as are others), but I suppose that that's something that we'll have to rectify. In any event, you will perforce be stayed from offering your service, for the reason that, as earlier stated, you will be banned if you do.

Best regards,


Miatog: So basicly, I can't do it cause you say so. There is nothing you can point to to back this up, just your word.

Gymnosophist: No, the real reason is that TheKolWiki, like many smaller Wiki's, looks to http:// en.wikipedia.org for many of our policies and procedures. Wikipedia specifically prohibits advertising on their site. Also, something similar came up some time ago when someone was advertising their buff services on the Wiki. It was quickly decided that this sort of thing was inappropriate content for the Wiki and we removed the content.

If you like, please feel free to bring the matter up in http:// kol.coldfront.net/ thekolwiki/ index.php/Discussion

Best regards,


Miatog: ah, that's much better. See, now it's more then just cause you say. Alright, I'll bring up my reasons why I think it should be allowed at tthat page. Thanks for backing up your decition.

  • I think this is pretty cut and dried - it's against Wikipedia policy and it's against our own policy. We simply haven't formalized the no-advertising policy. --Gymnosophist 01:32, 16 November 2006 (CST)

Ascension Tattoo Images

One of the somewhat recent changes to the Kingdom renamed the ascension tattoo images from ascX.gif to asc0X.gif (for ascension tattoos from one to nine) to keep them listed in the correct order on the manage tattoos page (since it lists them in alphabetical order). I'm fairly certain there aren't any differences in the pictures changes, although both versions are still hosted in the respectable place on the KoL servers. So basically, what I'm asking, is to be consistent, should asc1.gif - asc9.gif and hasc1.gif - hasc9.gif be moved to asc01.gif - asc09.gif and hasc01.gif - hasc09.gif? The images are only used on a few "official" wiki pages, except that several users (myself included) include them on their user pages. Perhaps a bot could assist? --TheDotGamer 20:55, 20 November 2006 (CST)

Trophy Filename

As the trophy filenames are always amusing, or at least interesting, I wonder if we should formally add the trophy filename to the trophy page layout, possibly as part of this template. --Gymnosophist 14:24, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

Mr. Store Successioning?

Since Mr. Store Items get rotated every month and the LepraVol and LepraFairy get rotated every year, what do people think of a wikipedia type succession box on these pages? Or would it be overkill, ugly, or oddly placed? Generic and examples follow: Of course it can always be beautified/altered. --JRSiebz (|§|) 23:17, 12 October 2006 (CDT)

Preceded by:
Succeeded by:
Preceded by:
Cheshire Bitten
unwound cymbal-playing monkey
Oct. 6, 2005 - Oct. 6, 2006
Succeeded by:
nervous tick egg
Preceded by:
Comma Chameleon egg
Travoltan trousers
September 2006
Succeeded by:
plastic pumpkin bucket

I imagine these go on the bottom of the page? If so, yes they look great and would work well.--Dehstil (t|c) 23:41, 12 October 2006 (CDT)

  • I reckon it's as functional as it gets, and especially helpful for mall investors wanting to compare prices to age. Go with it, I say. --Shokwave 08:29, 15 October 2006 (CDT)
    • This idea died for some reason. I still want it to happen, any other comments before I make templates out of them, and add them to their respective pages?--SomeStranger (t|c) 00:37, 8 January 2007 (CST)
    • Ok, {{iotm}} has been made. Hopefully, we'll get around to applying it soon.--Dehstil (t|c) 22:45, 27 January 2007 (CST)
    • Doesn't look as good below the collection box. Is there a better place to put them?--Dehstil (t|c) 16:03, 28 January 2007 (CST)
      • I always felt templates sort of looked out of place below the collection box, such as with the Ultra Rares. I don't think there is anywhere better to put it as it is currently formatted though. Maybe if it was right-aligned it could go in the Notes section... but that may look odd too. Also, I know I could have easily changed it but doesn't "Succeeded by: Current" not sound the best. Maybe "Succeeded by: None (Current)" or something of that effect would flow better. --TheDotGamer 21:22, 28 January 2007 (CST)

Vanity on the "Chat" Page

The page Chat has been over-run with player and clan vanities.

For instance, this in the section about /newbie: "Another common joke is to accuse JediKiddo(#754464) of being a multi of JEDI_KNIGHTAMU902005(#570950). This channel is frequented by a clan known as The Untouchables, who are generally known for subtle trolling and... questionable /clan antics that occasionally spill over into /newbie."

And this in the section about/games: "Many, such as Arwen48, like to refer to work as w***. Yon Dungeonman is often found cock blocking. Blythe wants Tivolimom's pickle. The channel celebrates the eccentricities and injuries and innuendo of A Naked Jew. Misfires from Aspertame are frequent and are the number 2 cause of WTFs in /games. AlmightyGT's random crazyness can be seen here too."

I'm sure that many channel regulars have never heard of many of these players. Also, as it stands, it's difficult to revert a player adding a vanity without taking into account all the other similar vanities that have been added. We need to either create strict rules for this, or (preferably) just remove player and clan names from the page altogether.--Jubbers14 03:15, 25 November 2006 (CST)

  • I agree, down with the etc etc etc.--Dehstil (t|c) 14:55, 25 November 2006 (CST)

Okay, I've deleted all the player/clan vanities. The page looks much better.--Jubbers14 16:34, 25 November 2006 (CST)

Toymaking / Toolmaking / Spookytoymaking/ Future Toymaking Recipe Images

Just starting a "thread". Current we use a crimbo hat for toymaking (Crimbohat.gif), but what should we use for ugh's toolmaking and the scream queen's toymaking? I cropped a few location images to get these: trailerbj5.gif, ughcavedc8.gif, and truckcj3.gif (hosted offsite) - I don't like the cave one for ugh crimbo. We could use a toy/tool (resulting) item as the recipe pic, but that would get confusing, for example if the wheel (Cavewheel.gif) was the image for toolmaking, the recipe on the wheel page would feature a wheel on it. Any other ideas? --JRSiebz (|§|) 17:51, 4 December 2006 (CST)

  • Here (borgvy6.gif) is one for the future toymaking in Crimborg Collective, all 30x30, still don't like the prehistoric one though.--JRSiebz (|§|) 01:06, 7 December 2006 (CST)
    • Maybe a small version of crimbo rock would work? --Starwed 03:12, 7 December 2006 (CST)
  • I like the wheel, personally.--Jubbers14 15:22, 7 December 2006 (CST)
  • I like the crimbo rock idea because it's more consistent with other crafting images in that it shows what to use/where to go to craft something. The cave image doesn't look clear, so a picture of the rock itself would be fine. I imagine Mini-NPCs would look bad.--Dehstil (t|c) 13:54, 9 December 2006 (CST)
    • I tried a mini-NPC for the hell of it: A reduced Ugh Crimbo looks junky (ughcrimbo1mq2.gif), but if I increased the resolution before shrinking it looks better (ughcrimbo2en4.gif), but still, at 30x30, it's hard to know what/who it is at first glance. Here's a crimbo rock (ughrockiv7.gif), resolution increased, then reduced, and then the contrast increased to turn it back to the right darkness (from grayish to more blackish). --JRSiebz (|§|) 19:56, 9 December 2006 (CST)
    • There, is {{Toymaker}}, {{Toolmaker}}, {{Spooky Toymaker}}, and {{Assimilator}} ready and all properly named and the like?--Dehstil (t|c) 22:23, 10 December 2006 (CST)

Switched Pictures

All the time I've been seeing the picture for items switched - heart necklace replace by vampire heart, and right now flanges look like pies. Is this just because I'm using Firefox, or is something going on with this? Is it foreshadowing to a one-time plot (like the penguin mafia)? --Co678 17:36, 13 December 2006 (CST)

  • You mean the pictures on the wiki or in the game? Either way, your local image cache probably somehow got corrupted. Try clearing your "private data", specifically your cache, and then try viewing the pages again. After the cache is cleared, when you view a page, the images should be refetched from the server(s) instead of just using your local copies of them. --JRSiebz (|§|) 20:31, 13 December 2006 (CST)
  • Ok I tried that. At first I thought it had worked, because everything looked normal - until I saw a blue snow cone looking like this:

dsnowcone.gif (the file location) dsnowcone.gif (what it looked like to me) ]snowconesafe.jpg (a screen shot incase the second one appeared as a snowcone)

One of the following is true: 1) I have a serious error, like a virus (highly improbable, because it would have to pertain specifically to KoL)

2) Firefox is incompatible with KoL

3) KoL is bugged

4) Jick (or someone like Phoenix or Mr. Skully) is doing this on purpose.

I would like another Firefox user to compare, so I can rule that out. --Co678 21:06, 13 December 2006 (CST)

  • Ok, I just put the snow cone in my store, and asked people to look at it, and they saw it normal --Co678 21:15, 13 December 2006 (CST)
  • I pretty much always use firefox and use it often; I'm assuming it's something else, and I'm assuming it's really really messed up on the client-side. I'm not sure though until we know why the picture swapping is happening.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:25, 13 December 2006 (CST)
  • /me always uses firefox, well unless I'm checking to make sure something looks right in IE. And IE 7, *shivers*. So did you clear you cache, close FF, and then re-open FF? Are you running/using any greasemonkey scripts which maybe either conflicting with caching and/or having undesired effects? Are you using an updated version of firefox? And you don't need [IMG] tags, this isn't a forum running phpbb using bbcode. It's a wiki based on mediawiki, so a numbered list is designated by #'s. And it's probably an unlisted problem 5. Having a minor client side error :-P. --JRSiebz (|§|) 21:53, 13 December 2006 (CST)
  • So at this point we think its something on my end. Well a couple of minutes after I took the screen shot I could see it as a snowcone. I cleared my cache, I'm not using scripts, I have Firefox 2.0, and I'm removing the [img] tags now

I'm using Firefox as well... current images that I've seen screwed up are the snorkel (replaced with the egg.gif) and the logic synthesizer (which just appears as a broken image). Not sure what to think of it, yet... maybe some sort of hallucination brought on by too much gin? :)--Dorf 19:07, 15 December 2006 (CST)

It probably isn't Firefox, because KoL is the only site I get screwed up images on. Seems like other people occasionally get bad images but not enough to complain about.

Data namespace

In Discussion/Infoboxes it was suggested that all pages of the form item/data be moved into a new Data namespace, to make search results less cluttered. There was general agreement that this was a good idea, but no progress since then.

Now, adding a new namespace obviously requires someone with the right privileges on the wiki. Who has such privileges? --Starwed 11:37, 18 December 2006 (CST)

  • An old discussion, but this issue has now been resolved. --Quietust (t|c) 12:14, 19 January 2007 (CST)
    • I'm still curious who the go-to person is for this sort of major change of the wiki. --Starwed 13:29, 19 January 2007 (CST)
      • That would be Mag, the guy who tends to make the actual code changes. Jinya tends to take care of the other stuff. Of course, there's still the matter of giving delete privileges to bots - either all bots (of which there are two, both owned by sysops), or as a new user level - so I can clean up all of the old /data redirects. --Quietust (t|c) 15:53, 19 January 2007 (CST)


I made a new category for turtles. Is it necessary? Does reinforced furry underpants count as a turtle? (probably not)
Comment, please? --Raijinili 22:12, 19 January 2007 (CST)

  • I doubt we need a category for a random assortment of items, else what's stopping other similar-type categories from appearing ("furs", "round items", etc.). A "turtles" page, maybe, but most of that is covered via Armorcraftiness and Meatsmithing. I'm glad you waited 0 minutes for responses on a Friday night before, as you put it, "being bold". :-P --JRSiebz (|§|) 23:55, 19 January 2007 (CST)
    • On a side note, you should learn how to link to categories properly. [[Category:Something]] puts a page in a category, [[:Category:Something]] links to a category (like for redirects) and [[:Category:Something|link label]] for inline links. --JRSiebz (|§|) 00:01, 20 January 2007 (CST)
      • Turtles give boosts to TT skills. I'd hardly call that random. --Raijinili 03:50, 20 January 2007 (CST)
      • Ok, edited all relevant pages.--Dehstil (t|c) 19:52, 24 January 2007 (CST)
        • Actually, according to the Headbutt page, the Meaty Helmet Turtle doesn't give a damage boost. --Raijinili 19:06, 28 January 2007 (CST)

Blanket Blocks

I'm just trying to understand the issue of some people getting wiki-banned by ip when a user gets blocked. I thought when we blocked a wiki user, it just blocked the user, and when we blocked an ip when we specified an ip. But I've noticed that there are now more options on the block page than there used to be, specifically the check boxes, "Block anonymous users only" and "Prevent account creation". I'm assuming the first blocks an ip unless the user is registered. This is unchecked as default and doesn't really apply here since we don't allow anonymous non-registered edits. The second is checked on default and it seems logical to me that it would ban an ip, so that even new accounts couldn't be created with that ip. So when banning people (which actually isn't that often for you non-admins reading this) would making sure that "Prevent account creation" is unchecked help anything? In the block list, the old bans showed up as:

DATE BLOCKER (Talk) blocked BLOCKEE (contribs) (LENGTH) (unblock) (REASON)

The the last one I/we've did/done showed up as:

DATE BLOCKER (Talk) blocked BLOCKEE (contribs) (LENGTH, account creation blocked) (unblock) (REASON)

Is this part of the problem? or is a wiki feature unknown to me causing the trouble? --JRSiebz (|§|) 21:21, 23 January 2007 (CST)

  • The problem is that the wiki is being cached by a proxy but isn't aware of it, so it thinks all visitors are coming from that proxy. As such, when you block one user, the wiki automatically blocks all other users from the same IP address (i.e. everybody, since everybody is accessing through the same proxy). I don't know whether or not this issue has been resolved - there was a bit of talk on the mailing list, but no definitive conclusions were reached. --Quietust (t|c) 21:33, 23 January 2007 (CST)

Clan History

Over here on the forums, Jick himself expressed that it would be neat if the content of the KoL Clan History site (which will be going offline soon) was integrated into this wiki. Should we just create pages named after each clan, or would it be better to establish a pseudo-namespace (like "Established Standards" is) to hold this information? --Quietust (t|c) 08:58, 29 January 2007 (CST)

  • I vote for new namespace. I'd like to be able to tell at a glance from the Recent Changes page if it is real game content or just a clan or user. --Club (#66669) (Talk) 13:01, 29 January 2007 (CST)
    • Note that I was not suggesting a real namespace, just a naming convention for the pages. Adding a new namespace to the wiki requires intervention from the sysadmins, and I don't think it's worth it for just a small handful of pages (compared to the Data namespace, which was absolutely necessary). If we're going to go with this route, how should the pages be named? --Quietust (t|c) 13:10, 29 January 2007 (CST)
    • Real or fake namespace doesn't matter to me, just so long as the name identifies the type of object. Maybe add a (clan) at the end of the name? Eg: [[Warehouse 23 (clan)]]. --Club (#66669) (Talk) 16:23, 29 January 2007 (CST)
    • While it sounds like this won't end up happening, if it does I'd propose using subpages rather than a pseudo-namespace like convention. (So [[Clan Histories/Clan X]] rather than [[Clan History:Clan x]]) --Starwed 03:55, 30 January 2007 (CST)
  • "Soon to be offline" - Since the address is a sXXXXXX.onlinehome.us, I'm assuming his/her 3 year professional preview package at 1and1 is expiring. I don't know anyone else who had one of those ;-). -- Aren't these more fan faction than real histories? I think they should stay hosted elsewhere. First of all, are ones for more clan ever going to be created by the same person? Second, where do we put them in a way that people don't start creating histories for themselves? Third, how can we do that in a fair and consistent manor? Clan can have their history on a page at their individual websites anyway. [Still thinks the few existing clan pages should be removed (especially the ones kept "just because" [that's bunk]) in favor of linking to clan websites]. How can you reasonably allow some clan (history) pages at all, you either need to let all or none (easy to moderate then), else it becomes very subjective and causes large amounts of wikidrama. --JRSiebz (|§|) 16:50, 29 January 2007 (CST)
  • Hmm, I guess they could be hosted elsewhere; I'm rather indifferent towards the whole thing, since I wasn't around when people were talking about making the wiki into a psuedo-KoLSpace (I'd be against that though :P). If we do host it, I guess we could leave it in the main namespace or at somewhere like Clan:. Appending (clan) to the end would seem nonintuitive based on our current naming scheme, which uses that to disambiguate, possibly confusing somebody, somewhere.--Dehstil (t|c) 16:57, 29 January 2007 (CST)
    • Idea. Can't coldfront just absorb the content? Isn't there some comic/fanfict stuff hosted there. Specifically, be imported here? --JRSiebz (|§|) 17:15, 29 January 2007 (CST)
  • They have already been mirrored by a few people in the said thread (by datavortex here, jeremypv here, and phyphor here). Now whether or not all or any of these will stay active or update remains to be seen. I'm for not hosting them on the wiki mostly due to things that have already been mentioned (all clans would want one, most are written by same author, etc...) --TheDotGamer 20:00, 29 January 2007 (CST)
  • Excellent.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:19, 29 January 2007 (CST)
  • My mirror will be staying up indefinitely (at least years). --DataVortex 00:13, 14 February 2007 (CST)

Edit link on left

  • this really blows! whose idea was that, then? on the right and smaller it's unobtrusive and doesn't interfere with the sense of the heading. on the left and bigger it does both. </rant> --Evilkolbot 04:51, 18 February 2007 (CST)
    • Agreed. --DVuser.giffile_icon.gifmail_icon.giflink_icon.gif 13:37, 18 February 2007 (CST)
  • I second that motion. Our veiwers won't like it and we don't really need it either. --Applejordan 15:36, 18 February 2007 (CST)
  • We recently upgraded our wiki software and that was a minor side effect. It should be fixed now.--Dehstil (t|c) 18:14, 18 February 2007 (CST)
    • i suspected as much. yay for great service! many thanks. --Evilkolbot 02:10, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Linking Question

If for some reason one wanted to link to a "category" page, how would one go about doing that? For example, I'm looking to link something in my user page to the Category:Meatsmithing_Components page, but can't figure out the syntax.--Dorf 17:57, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

  • Interesting place for this question (Dorf's edit: I moved this to the Discussion page, apologies for not catching that earlier)... You need to stick a colon in front, like so:
 [[:Category:Meatsmithing Components]]

gives you this:

 Category:Meatsmithing Components

--Bagatelle 18:32, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

Your other familiars look a little bored.

[original page content for Your other familiars look a little bored. was: "A message in Kingdom of Loathing. I have no idea what it means except for the fact that the game won't let me adventure with my 7-pound Cocoabo. Anyone seen this before?"], left by DreamTheEndless (talkcontribs) at 08:25, 14 April 2007 (CDT).

[the following discussion was archived from the now deleted Talk:Your other familiars look a little bored.] --TheDotGamer 18:26, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

  • Are you using KolMafia.. cause I think it gives a message like this when trying to farm with a cocoabob and NPZR. --Thomadaneau 11:46, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
  • This is most definitely a KoLMafia addition - and one that was added on purpose because the creator was "sick of people clogging up the bandwidth with stasis." This page should be removed. (I don't have sysop abilities).--Dorf (Talk | Contribs) 12:31, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

[the preceding discussion was archived from the now deleted Talk:Your other familiars look a little bored.] --TheDotGamer 18:26, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

  • I deleted it. (Obviously) --TheDotGamer 18:26, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

Valentines day

It's valentines day, so I looked for all the features. there are no valentines in the gift shop, and unlike last valentines day, they aren't even in a made-up store. farming for them in the sleazy back alley, haunted pantry, and outskirts of the cobbs knob (where they dropped last year) for 20 adventures each with a fair amount of item drop increasers, they were not to be found.

Looks like there's no valentines on valentines day.--Applejordan 23:03, 27 April 2007 (CDT)


I've noticed that sellbot (#1053259) and the related itembot (#1262390) aren't included in the Bots page. I've used sellbot over the last couple of ascensions, and it doesn't look like a scam (but then again what scam does...). Would anyone have burning objections to listing them? I think I read somewhere that the Wiki has an unofficial policy against advertising for-profit services, but sellbot offers some free services, and the way things generally work out (at least with min-price items), both parties end up profiting rather than just the bot operator. --Bagatelle 20:28, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

Fixing forum links.

Someone needs to fix all of the links going to the hardcoreoxygenation.com site.

  • I just put this on Quietust's bot request page. --Starwed 13:20, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
    • Performing this replacement will have one minor difficulty - the Search function does not return link URLs, only text visible on the page (and template parameters). Locating every last page may turn out to be rather time consuming, especially if it necessitates performing a database dump. --Quietust (t|c) 14:10, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
      • Seems doing a page export of everything on the wiki won't be so bad after all - the hard part will just be parsing through the megabytes worth of XML to find all of the pages containing relevant links. A rough pass (by hand) across article/talk pages turns up about 45 hits, though it's possible I may have missed some. --Quietust (t|c) 14:45, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
        • Er, interesting. The hardcoreoxygenation.com links seem to work now (witness this link I pulled from a talk page). --Bagatelle 19:18, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
          • Yeah, I noticed an article on slashdot earlier, about how all of the RegisterFly domains which were in limbo were transferred to GoDaddy. Since that's exactly the problem the HCO site had, this must have fixed it. --Starwed 02:19, 30 May 2007 (CDT)